set_purchase_order_receipts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key constraint: apply remains blocked until stock semantics are canary-proven. That is useful, but it does not explain permissions, side effects, reversibility, what the preview returns, or how dryRun/previewToken/hashes behave.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the apply constraint. It is efficiently sized, though the phrase 'canary-proven' is jargon that reduces clarity without adding precision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 14-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what the required receiveLines should contain, what the preview returns, or how the various hash/token fields are used.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, including dryRun, previewToken, idempotencyKey, and multiple expected-hash fields. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: preview purchase-order receipt changes. It is clear about the preview scope, but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like receive_purchase_order or unreceive_purchase_order, leaving some ambiguity about how it relates to the direct receive/unreceive operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage by stating that apply is blocked until semantics are canary-proven, so an agent knows this tool is currently for preview rather than apply. However, it never says when to use this tool instead of the direct receive/unreceive siblings, nor what alternatives exist for actually applying changes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.